saxitoxin wrote:This is from an Australian university so the research may have consisted of a couple roo hunters checking-out their buddies trailer outside Alice Springs while on a beer run, but, for what it's worth ...

The authors conclude with the following statement:

The impact of safe storage laws are consistent with existing research indicating that the guns which are most likely to be used in an accidental shooting are owned by the least law-abiding citizens and thus are least likely to be locked up after the passage of the law. The safe storage laws thus manage to produce no significant change in accidental deaths or suicides and yet still raise crime rates because households with low accidental death risks are now the ones to most likely to obey the law.

This is an issue with implementation and enforcement, not necessarily the idea itself, of course. How strongly the two issues are linked is not something we can necessarily answer with the limited sample size we have of states that have tried this (and many of them were requiring trigger lock type things instead of gun vaults).

KoolBak wrote:The bad guys would definitely follow those laws. Every gun owner I know is a hunter as well and all hunters are required to pass an authorized Hunters Safety Program prior to acquiring hunting licenses....just sayin.

The intent of the training and safety courses is not to diminish the number of gun owners but to increase the effectiveness in self-defense of those who do own firearms. Isn't this something we can all get behind?

If someone really requires such training, then let them and/or their friends convince them to voluntarily take such classes.

Compulsory self-defense classes that are monopolized by the government are unnecessary.And mandatory gun lockers would reduce the effectiveness of self-defense at the home.Together, your two policies are counter-productive, thus wasteful.

I wonder if we can make an analogy to something else - another tool that causes many deaths for which you have to take a test before operating. Let's try to brainstorm.

DMV and driving licenses come to mind. Their record is about 36,000 fatalities on government roads and highways per year. Since management (government) is the fundamental cause, then the government is largely to blame for failing to more effectively curb such deaths associated with the use of their products (roads, driving licenses, etc.).

Metsfanmax wrote:This is an issue with implementation and enforcement, not necessarily the idea itself, of course.

While true, it logically places the onus on supporters of gun safes to ideate and present a program that is significantly different from every other program previously attempted before further advocacy on the concept as well as to describe the legal mechanism by which it could be accomplished (that is, some method that would not be a violation of the 4th Amendment).

A few of those are fawking scary, particularly number 6. You're one sick individual just for even mentioning/listing it, saxi.I'm all about punishment after a fact, and severely. Except for the assault weapon one, those things are just ridiculous.

Create a Registry of Who Owns What Firearms: Too many guns to monitor; even legal guns are too fluid; illegal ones are even more so.

Require a Government-Issued License to Purchase: What government? I worry that it would be too easy to forge. Underage kids get booze all the time with forgeries. Crooks >> Kids

Reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban: Is a crappy feel good law that did nothing. Columbine happened during the ban. I know people wonder why anyone in their right mind would want one but if you are defending your store in an urban area from a riot mob abandoned by the local police (true story) you need to be as much "A-Team" as possible. (Grant you that in the case of a small occupy mob all you need is a loud sounding pump action double barrel shotgun (also a true story).

Require Firearms be Stored at a Gun Range or in a Government-Inspected Vault in the Home: You know some people love to display a rifle over the moose head in the hunting lodge. I can't see how this would be enforced, although it is common sense.

A massive registry has several problems. From a practical perspective, it requires a lot of time and energy. If you have a registry, then there has to be a penalty for people who don't register or its pointless. If you penalize people for not registering guns, then it winds up intruding on a LOT of people's privacy for no good end.

And, is a registry really going to be useful in preventing violance? The basic answer is that it will provide a way for the government to come in an seize guns from legal gun owners, basically law-abiding citizens -- like they did in New Orleans and like they have done historically in the past in other countries. A registry does NOT do a thing to prevent crime, not really.

Back ground check is reasonable. I would like to see a few of the existing loopholes sealed. Buying a gun at a gun show, at a minimum, should require a check. Tracking private purchases would be more difficult, but is something worth considering if we want checks to work. Similarly, I can definitely see cause to add some people with mental illness, BUT we have to be very, very cautious here. People tend to target folks who are just "different" and see them as being some kind of threat.. even if the real evidence is that 99.999% of those people are not a threat. To be effective, a registry of people with mental illnesses needs to happen only after a lot more research. The current approach of targeting behavior is probably better overall. We are not yet able to really predict who will or will not wind up being a killer... with a few exceptions.

Exceptions to the "we don't know who will be a killer". I would like to see limits placed on people who abuse animals. People who actively abuse animals (not just neglect them or "hoard" them, I mean people who torture them for fun) often wind up hurting humans next. IN some cases, I think juvenile convictions in this regard.. and certain kinds of rape ought to be carried over into adulthood, though with a great deal of caution and some stop gap measures to ensure that a kid isn't, say targeted for life because he got mad at age 10 and hit a dog. On the other hand, if he had a habit of collecting neighborhood strays and doing "experiments" on them... well, maybe. Similarly, we already target the teenager who basically pissed off his girlfriend's parents a bit too much, but the boy who rapes his 5 year old neighbor at age 11 might need to be tracked.. or at least, the file should be tagged so that it might be visible IF other events happen later (if he is convicted of other rapes, etc.). Anyway, those types of people probably ought not to have guns.

People who knowingly try to buy a bun when they are on the "do not buy" list ought to be at least tracked. I am not necessarily comfortable with putting someone in jail for trying once.. particularly if there is any chance that there could have been some confusion on the part of the person applying as to whether they were eligible or not. However, if someone tries again to buy a gun after being turned down.... that ought to engender some penalty, perhaps jail.

Other than that, I think the concentration should be on better mental health care, and better training of youth about positive gun use. When the only association people have with guns is violance, then of course they are used for violence.

Along those lines, gun owners have to take more responsibility for teaching and using guns safely. The stray bullet that hits a pregnant woman in her car in her driveway hurts every hunter -- no matter how reasonable the use was deemed by the law.

One of the things I see with gun shows is that (and I admit I could be wrong here) I don't think they are spur of the moment things. It's not like your typical buyer of guns is going to say, "Hey, there is a gun show tomorrow, let me just get a ticket at the door." I would assume that these things are anticipated and planned for weeks, if not months, in advance. So why can't you select an option to have the gun show pre-background check you when you order the tickets (or x number of days before the show so that the results arrive before the show starts). That way, they can hand you a proper clearance right there on the spot. I think the whole gun show issue is a smelly red herring.

And by the way, least anyone not notice this, tzor and Player57832 are in perfect agreement on an issue. Somebody stop the presses. Let's do a group hug.

Although do you really don't want Michael Vick to own a gun? Well, I guess I don't want him to either. Still perfect agreement!

I don't want people to have a vault so all the guns are locked up putting them out of commision. (might be an ok idea but..)

I don't mind if Playa wants to arm herself with several fire arms to move from one location to another in her house. I just want to make it more difficult for someone to walk in and take firearms that are not being used from under the towel while you're out. Goofy Doberman is possibly more effective than a metal box with some sort of lock on it.

If the wrong person wants your gun they'll get it. I just want to make it a tiny bit tougher.

Metsfanmax wrote:This is an issue with implementation and enforcement, not necessarily the idea itself, of course.

While true, it logically places the onus on supporters of gun safes to ideate and present a program that is significantly different from every other program previously attempted before further advocacy on the concept as well as to describe the legal mechanism by which it could be accomplished (that is, some method that would not be a violation of the 4th Amendment).

One problem with this, probably the biggest, is that the NRA has actively opposed any and all collection of data on basically all such issues. Whether it is research tracking how many guns are used on household members versus intruders, safety in households with safely stored guns versus more accessible guns, etc .. the NRA has put pressure on various entities, most particularly the CDC to limit collection of the data.

The list leaves out several responsible options that Biden is reviewing. This list should include Gun Owners Insurance, Mandatory Training with Instructors, Smart Gun Technology, and closing the Gun Show Loophole.

Metsfanmax wrote:This is an issue with implementation and enforcement, not necessarily the idea itself, of course.

While true, it logically places the onus on supporters of gun safes to ideate and present a program that is significantly different from every other program previously attempted before further advocacy on the concept as well as to describe the legal mechanism by which it could be accomplished (that is, some method that would not be a violation of the 4th Amendment).

One problem with this, probably the biggest, is that the NRA has actively opposed any and all collection of data on basically all such issues. Whether it is research tracking how many guns are used on household members versus intruders, safety in households with safely stored guns versus more accessible guns, etc .. the NRA has put pressure on various entities, most particularly the CDC to limit collection of the data.

It's not even the NRA, per say, they're some kind of shell for the Gun Manufacturers. The NRA has only 4 million members, but American gun manufacturers donate millions of dollars to the NRA every year to keep it highly influential.

Night Strike wrote:I support banning automatic weapons and heavy weapons (like RPGs) as well as making sure violent felons are kept from owning guns.

I think this is an area that needs much more investigation. Even when it comes to background checks, there is sort of the assumption that we actually know who IS a "violent criminal" who ought not to own a gun. Of course, there are plenty of obvious folks. Even the NRA leadership is happy to keep serial killers and most pschopaths away from guns. However, once you get past that, the definitions get tricky.

"Felon", for example tends to make one think of murders and such, but can include someone who, say, was arrested for blocking a nuclear power plant when they were in college or who was growing more than x amount of marihuana during times when enforcement was strict. While I am not suggesting these people ought to be nominated for "upstanding citizen" awards, is giving them a gun really going to endanger the rest of us?

On the other hand, as I already mentioned, people who abuse animals may only get a minor penalty... but might well be giving us a pretty good indication that they are truly dangerous individuals.

What we need is more data on these types of links. Who really does commit crimes? We will never eliminate all criminal gun use.. or rather, I should say making that our goal is unreasonable simply because it would be too oppressive for the rest of us. It would be like banning alchohol or cars because drunk drivers are dangerous.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The list leaves out several responsible options that Biden is reviewing. This list should include Gun Owners Insurance, Mandatory Training with Instructors, Smart Gun Technology, and closing the Gun Show Loophole.

Why does "responsible" in your book and "common sense" in Obama's book ALWAYS equal more governmental regulations, control, and power?

PLAYER57832 wrote:"Felon", for example tends to make one think of murders and such, but can include someone who, say, was arrested for blocking a nuclear power plant when they were in college or who was growing more than x amount of marihuana during times when enforcement was strict. While I am not suggesting these people ought to be nominated for "upstanding citizen" awards, is giving them a gun really going to endanger the rest of us?

Which is why I said "violent felons" as it provides a little better clarity to which felons should actually be kept from having a gun.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The list leaves out several responsible options that Biden is reviewing. This list should include Gun Owners Insurance, Mandatory Training with Instructors, Smart Gun Technology, and closing the Gun Show Loophole.

Why does "responsible" in your book and "common sense" in Obama's book ALWAYS equal more governmental regulations, control, and power?

Meh, Liberals disagree with Conservatives about what "freedom" means. I guess to simplify what I mean; there's another kind of Freedom that you get when there are no mass shootings anymore.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The list leaves out several responsible options that Biden is reviewing. This list should include Gun Owners Insurance, Mandatory Training with Instructors, Smart Gun Technology, and closing the Gun Show Loophole.

Why does "responsible" in your book and "common sense" in Obama's book ALWAYS equal more governmental regulations, control, and power?

Meh, Liberals disagree with Conservatives about what "freedom" means. I guess to simplify what I mean; there's another kind of Freedom that you get when there are no mass shootings anymore.

You have about the same chance of being killed in a mass shooting as you do of being struck by lightning. Sounds like we will be losing MANY more freedoms for such a small perceived improvement in the human condition.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The list leaves out several responsible options that Biden is reviewing. This list should include Gun Owners Insurance, Mandatory Training with Instructors, Smart Gun Technology, and closing the Gun Show Loophole.

Why does "responsible" in your book and "common sense" in Obama's book ALWAYS equal more governmental regulations, control, and power?

Meh, Liberals disagree with Conservatives about what "freedom" means. I guess to simplify what I mean; there's another kind of Freedom that you get when there are no mass shootings anymore.

You have about the same chance of being killed in a mass shooting as you do of being struck by lightning. Sounds like we will be losing MANY more freedoms for such a small perceived improvement in the human condition.

Juan_Bottom wrote:The list leaves out several responsible options that Biden is reviewing. This list should include Gun Owners Insurance, Mandatory Training with Instructors, Smart Gun Technology, and closing the Gun Show Loophole.

Why does "responsible" in your book and "common sense" in Obama's book ALWAYS equal more governmental regulations, control, and power?

Meh, Liberals disagree with Conservatives about what "freedom" means. I guess to simplify what I mean; there's another kind of Freedom that you get when there are no mass shootings anymore.

You have about the same chance of being killed in a mass shooting as you do of being struck by lightning. Sounds like we will be losing MANY more freedoms for such a small perceived improvement in the human condition.

Yet the Lighting Rod exists.

Primarily to keep buildings and the electronics within them from being harmed by the lightning.

PLAYER57832 wrote:"Felon", for example tends to make one think of murders and such, but can include someone who, say, was arrested for blocking a nuclear power plant when they were in college or who was growing more than x amount of marihuana during times when enforcement was strict. While I am not suggesting these people ought to be nominated for "upstanding citizen" awards, is giving them a gun really going to endanger the rest of us?

Which is why I said "violent felons" as it provides a little better clarity to which felons should actually be kept from having a gun.

KoolBak wrote:The bad guys would definitely follow those laws. Every gun owner I know is a hunter as well and all hunters are required to pass an authorized Hunters Safety Program prior to acquiring hunting licenses....just sayin.

The intent of the training and safety courses is not to diminish the number of gun owners but to increase the effectiveness in self-defense of those who do own firearms. Isn't this something we can all get behind?

If someone really requires such training, then let them and/or their friends convince them to voluntarily take such classes.

A new survey from Gallup has discovered that Old White Men, a Withering and Dying Segment of Society (WDSS), support increasing gun restrictions by vast numbers while Dynamic Youth Culture oppose it. Dynamic Youth Culture, buoyed by their OWS-inspired activism against the torture of Bradley Manning, drone wars against the people of Libya and Pakistan, and warrantless government surveillance and phone-tapping, are continuing to stand-up against what they perceive as a burgeoning oligarchy, Gallup finds.

Meanwhile, Old White Men, desperately trying to cling to the fading embers of their control, are screaming for more government as they load-up on half-off Mom Jeans at Costco while annoying the samples ladies with stories about their great-grandchildren ...

... or complaining that Medicare didn't give them the "good drugs" after their hip replacement surgery ...

... or comforting people they meet on the street that they are just another 90-somethinger from the Senate, not a character from The Walking Dead ...